People v. Morris CA3
Filed 3/27/15 P. v. Morris CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
THE PEOPLE, C076243
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F01692 )
v.
BRANDY MORRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant Brandy Morris guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)),1 receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court found true allegations that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 11 years 8 months in prison.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing a one-year four- month consecutive term for receiving stolen property. She claims section 654 bars such a sentence because she received the stolen property (a car owner’s manual & vehicle registration) at the same time as she received the stolen vehicle (a sport utility vehicle (SUV)), as part of a single criminal act with a single purpose. We conclude that the trial court erred, but for different reasons. Because the contemporaneous receipt of two or more items of stolen property can only support a single conviction (People v. Lyons (1958) 50 Cal.2d 245, 275 (Lyons), overruled on other grounds in People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1; People v. Smith (1945) 26 Cal.2d 854, 859 (Smith)), and because defendant received the owner’s manual and registration at the same time as she received the SUV, we will reverse defendant’s conviction and sentence for receiving the stolen owner’s manual and registration. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. BACKGROUND Sarrah Ambriz’s silver SUV was stolen from the parking lot of her Roseville apartment complex in November 2012. Her husband’s car keys were also missing. Folsom Police Officer Christopher Hill saw a silver SUV back out of the driveway of 9380 Ottoman Way in the early morning hours of November 26, 2012. Officer Hill could not see the driver, but broadcast a description of the SUV over the police radio. Folsom Police Sergeant John Lewis heard the broadcast and spotted the SUV moments later. Sergeant Lewis followed the SUV to the driveway of a nearby house. Sergeant Lewis looked in the SUV, but did not see anyone. He heard someone jumping over a fence behind the house, and found a sweatshirt and a pair of slippers on the ground nearby. Sergeant Lewis did not see the driver. The SUV was unlocked and the keys were in the ignition. The SUV’s rear license plate had been covered over with paper-covered dealer plates.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)